Actually I think the main thing to take from the spurning of the Catholic church is the fickleness of the liberal wing. Remember back to the 70s and 80s when ecumenicalism was the flavour of the month — and every liberal worthy of the name scrambled to be on the board of some “council of churches” look-a-like, and we all had to forget our history, traditions and theological differences in the interests of “unity”? Now the Catholic church can stuff off — the New Thing of being gay (and/or female), is the flavour and “unity” is to be sacrificed if need be.
If I were a gay christian I would wonder how long my rein in the sun is going to last — five years, ten years, perhaps 20 years — before the next “prophetic” new thing comes along and then I will be sacrificed for the sake of it.
When someone in a leadership position in the church knows little of the Bible their fallback position is to go with what’s happening in society. Sadly, our seminaries are teaching neither the Bible nor biblical theology in any depth; so these leaders fumble around making theological pronouncements based on pop psychology and proof texts.
With this in mind, I think #1 is entirely correct. The only thing is how long the current religious fad will last. When it’s over it’ll be discarded like a man’s jacket with a belt in the back. Those who are slippery will see the next fad coming and herald it with the same level of publicity as the Jesus Seminar.
Truth? That’s a good one! So many are convinced that anything plausible is also worthy of belief, so that seminarians have little to hang on to. Heaven forbid that they should cling to our Lord Jesus Christ. If word got out that they were centering their faith on the Jesus of the Bible they would quietly be scorned.
When I’m the most discouraged, I have to remind myself that there has never been a time in the church’s history when we were not fighting about something.
Actually I think the main thing to take from the spurning of the Catholic church is the fickleness of the liberal wing. Remember back to the 70s and 80s when ecumenicalism was the flavour of the month — and every liberal worthy of the name scrambled to be on the board of some “council of churches” look-a-like, and we all had to forget our history, traditions and theological differences in the interests of “unity”? Now the Catholic church can stuff off — the New Thing of being gay (and/or female), is the flavour and “unity” is to be sacrificed if need be.
If I were a gay christian I would wonder how long my rein in the sun is going to last — five years, ten years, perhaps 20 years — before the next “prophetic” new thing comes along and then I will be sacrificed for the sake of it.
When someone in a leadership position in the church knows little of the Bible their fallback position is to go with what’s happening in society. Sadly, our seminaries are teaching neither the Bible nor biblical theology in any depth; so these leaders fumble around making theological pronouncements based on pop psychology and proof texts.
With this in mind, I think #1 is entirely correct. The only thing is how long the current religious fad will last. When it’s over it’ll be discarded like a man’s jacket with a belt in the back. Those who are slippery will see the next fad coming and herald it with the same level of publicity as the Jesus Seminar.
Truth? That’s a good one! So many are convinced that anything plausible is also worthy of belief, so that seminarians have little to hang on to. Heaven forbid that they should cling to our Lord Jesus Christ. If word got out that they were centering their faith on the Jesus of the Bible they would quietly be scorned.
When I’m the most discouraged, I have to remind myself that there has never been a time in the church’s history when we were not fighting about something.